Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya and Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for the custodial death of her only son, Liton Dey, on 29.03.2012 and initiation of criminal prosecution of the guilty police personnel of Haflong Police Station.

2. Case of the petitioner is that on 28.3.2012, her son, Liton Dey, aged about 23 years, was coming from the petrol pump towards his house i.e. BSNL complex at Haflong at about 6:00 p.m. on a motor bike. While riding the motor bike, Liton Dey met with a minor self accident near the Rotary Point, Haflong whereafter he fell down from his bike on the road. He suffered minor injuries on his elbow and got up immediately. No one else was injured and no property was damaged. As Liton Dey was about to restart his bike, suddenly two police men came on a bike, stopped him and asked him to accompany them to the police station. Though Liton Dey protested as there could be no justifiable reason for him to be summoned to the police station, his protest was brushed aside and he was forcibly taken to the police station.

3. When petitioner and her husband received information about the arrest of their son, they rushed to the Haflong Police Station at about 7:30 p.m. to enquire about the whereabouts of their son. They were told in the police station that Liton Dey was sent to the Civil Hospital for medical examination. At about 8:45 p.m. he was brought back to the Haflong Police Station from the Civil Hospital with handcuffs and was kept in the police lock up. Petitioner and her husband talked with their son and found him to be normal at that point of time. Though it appeared that Liton Dey was under the influence of liquor, he had control over himself. It came to light that a first information was lodged against Liton Dey before the Haflong Police Station by the police personnel which was registered as Haflong PS Case No. 22/2012 under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 177 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. Though the petitioner and her husband pleaded before respondent No. 4, the Officer-in-Charge of Haflong Police Station to release their son since the sections under which he was arrested were all bailable, respondent No. 4 did not listen to their pleas. Petitioner and her husband returned home at about 10:00 p.m.

5. At about 11:30 p.m. that night, petitioner's husband received a phone call from the Haflong Police Station stating that his son was in a serious condition for which he had to be hospitalized. When the petitioner and her husband rushed to the Civil Hospital, they found their son in a critical condition. They were in a state of disbelief because just about two hours earlier they had talked to their son, who appeared to be perfectly normal. Though respondent No. 4 had come to the Civil Hospital he did not answer the queries of the petitioner and her husband as to how their son was in such a critical condition. Petitioner and her husband also noticed several injury marks in the exposed portion of the body of their son.

6. On the next morning at about 6:10 a.m. i.e. on 29.03.2012, Liton Dey expired in the hospital.

7. It is contended that there was no justifiable reason to detain the deceased in the police station as no accident had occurred. The deceased had simply fallen down from his own motor bike and suffered minor injuries on his right elbow. Therefore, the police personnel had no business to compel the deceased to come to the Haflong Police Station and thereafter to register a police case against him. Even then, the sections under which the deceased was detained were all bailable; yet he was not allowed to go and instead kept in the police lock up. After medical examination in the Civil Hospital, Liton Dey